You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 December 2020

We inspected Zenith Cosmetic Clinic in October 2016 before our legal duty to rate cosmetic services. There were no identified breaches during the inspection. However, recently the service informed us they wished to add an overnight bed for patients. We carried out a short notice announced comprehensive inspection of Zenith Cosmetic Clinic, in response to questions we had about the changes to the service.

At this inspection we rated it as Good because:

  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from those internal to the service as well as external services.
  • Staff provided care and treatment which was better than expected when compared to similar services, met patients’ individual nutrition and hydration needs and gave them pain relief or alternative therapies when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. The service was open six days a week and met individual requirements when needed.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, they truly respected their privacy and dignity, took a holistic approach to meeting their individual needs, with a strong, visible patient centred culture. Staff helped them understand their procedure and become partners in their care. They provided emotional support to patients and families. Feedback was consistently positive about the way they had been treated.
  • The services were tailored to meet the individual needs of the patient and delivered in a way to ensure flexibility and choice. The service planned care to meet the needs of local people with a specific requirement for treatment, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment. Complaints were low and were responded to in a timely manner when they arose.
  • Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and aligned themselves to it. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged with patients and other professionals to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

Heidi Smoult Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (Central)

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 11 December 2020

Effective

Good

Updated 11 December 2020

Caring

Outstanding

Updated 11 December 2020

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 December 2020

Well-led

Good

Updated 11 December 2020

Checks on specific services

Surgery

Good

Updated 11 December 2020

We rated this service as good because:

  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
  • Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, truly respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs and helped them understand their procedure. Staff provided emotional support to patients and families. Feedback was consistently positive about the way they had been treated. With many patients recommending friends and family and returning for further treatment.
  • The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
  • Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.